Andrei_bt

On 12/23/2018 at 10:14 PM, Militarysta said:

 

As I said - old Leopard 2A4 have better armour in case vs CE - while T-72M1 is circa 500-550mm then in Leopard 2A4 is 700-750mm+. It's big difrence.  From the other side - Leopard 2A4 have weaker armour vs KE.  Against older Soviet ammo (3BM9, 3BM15, 3BM22) it's 400mm+ but against longer rods (M111, DM23 etc) its "only" circa 330mm RHA. 

In this  scenario, ironnicly T-72M1 have advantage over Leopard 2A4.  And unfortunatly PT-91 whit ERAWA 2 (on test better then Knive/Nozh ERA) is better armoured then basic Leopard 2A4. And again -in all other aspects Leopard 2 outperform PT-91. 

And I will repet  again - almoust all informations about problems whit Leopard 2PL or doubfull balistic test are rumors from OBRUM and HSW factories - co competitors of Bumar - Łabędy SA. Polish Rheinmettal of course doesen't coment, WITU too.  There are some rumors from army side but they are rather suport IBD/Rheinemttal then blame them. And all is theory OPSPEC so I would be very cerfull whit some "hard" statsments.   Some rumors from MSPO'2018 are not trusted sources!

 

Nope.

 

Incorrect turret

5 M8 prototypes were made under 1992 contract.

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/armata_brem.htm

No, it's not official, but there were such ideas in past.

Maybe in some conception they were, but this was not comparable level of study as 1990-1991 Morozov's project (and not 490B) http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.htm

 They (the US 1968 project) just made a brief essay with only basic rudimentary study.

For example the same -

Questionmark III.

On November 27, 1984, the MBT T-80U tank was officially accepted for service in Soviet army by order № 1184-301 of Central committee of Communist party of USSR and council of ministers.

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-80u.htm

Also this day by the order № №П83-300сс of Central committee of Communist party of USSR and council of ministers T-72B was officially accepted for service in Soviet army.

http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-72B.htm

about the “Oplot”, I think this is a “triumph” of the T-64 series ... and its followers.  But this is not a 21st century tank.

 Morozov’s followers on both sides of the border sawn the old concept, time showed how far ahead of time it was.  But sometimes it is worth stopping and thinking about something new (I’m not talking about Armata and not even about T-95).

Ukrainian BM Oplot tank in details –

http://btvt.info/1inservice/bm_oplot.htm

1- building, 2 - superstructure, 3-crane equipment, 4 - coulter-bulldozer, 5 - hydraulic hammer, loading platform, 7 - left - driver’s workplace, 8 - right - commander’s workplace, 9 - landing hatch and  landings of sappers, 10 and 11 - quick-release metal-ceramic modules, 12 - support stand of crane equipment, 13 - bucket, 14 - handle, 15 - quick-change mechanism, 16 - hook suspension with a maximum carrying capacity of 7.5 tons, 17-22 - armored protection covers  hydraulic equipment of crane equipment, 23 - movable left wing of the opener-bulldozer blade, 24  - central plow of the opener-bulldozer, 25 - movable right wing of the opener-bulldozer, 26 - replaceable opener-bulldozer knives, 27 - unified combat module, 28 - 12.7 mm machine gun, 29 - compartment for camouflage kits on the summer vegetative background  and on a snowy background, a DKMV control unit, 30 - remote control panel for excavator boom equipment, laid in a box, 31 - remote control panel for boom excavator equipment, laid in a box to the left of the machine commander, 32 - winch control panel, located with  eva of the driver, 33 - blade pitch angle sensor, 34 - position sensors jib elements equipment 35 - matching device.

http://btvt.info/1inservice/ubim158.htm (in Russian)

9 hours ago, Molota_477 said:

Wasn't it only the ob.490A intended to use the variable shape propellant charge?

This was 490A from late 1984 which was  intended to use the variable shape propellant charge. It was also intended for 152 mm 477.

11 hours ago, Xoon said:

 

I can translate more if anyone is interested.

Hi! yes, very interesting

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/229131.html

15 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Interesting design.  But I dont really understand that 4 track arrangement. Sure, if the tank loses one track, it remains able to move. But on the other hand, it makes the vehicle needlessly complicated. 2 engines, geared together driving 2 tracks would be better I think for this concept.

Hard to say - MLRS dispenses 28 AT-2 antitank mines a round.

About the last Soviet tank design, some sort of "what if ...." - http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.htm

Early design of armata and Kurganets

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/armata_brigada.htm

Same as here - 

BUK-M1 vs ground targets -

https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2018/10/buk-m1-air-defense-missile-system.html

490A  Rebel - competitor of 490 Poplar

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490a.htm

History repeats - in 1984 it was finally decided to chose 152 mm (490 and 490A were equiped with improoved 125 mm gun, like on Armata). Then they returned to 125 mm and will soon go to 152 mm.

Partially survived - only the hull which was used to test molot engine.

The turret was used for fire trials, so it has obj 476 turret and add onn plate to imitate weight.

490A has crew separated from ammo, but has no blow off panels.

 late variant of 490A had also autoloader  separated from crew only by a steel case.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Objekt-490A layout was the best I think. Crew below turret and separated from ammo, massive frontal hull armor, low turret, also with heavy armor. Sad that this tank didnt see serial production.

You are talking about obj 490, not 490A.

Both 490, but completely different.

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Object 490 had turret bustle mounted autoloader, with additional rounds mounted between engine and crew compartment. Both ammoracks were protected/separated from the crew and had blow out panels. Object 640 is not a new designs, it is just attempt to mix T-80 with some of ideas that were used on Object 490.

 

 

   This layout have problems. Having big ass turret bustle is not going to increase overall survivability of tank under fire. It increases side projection and frontal projection in 60 degr arc of a tank in worst place - area higher above the ground, where statistically more hits are happening. Placing ammo in the hull is preferable. 

   Also increasig size of turret isn't good idea for vehicles fighting in urban conditions. They already have long gun barrels to worry about, but gunner can at least see what is happening near muzzle end of guns (usually), unlike turret bustle. 

The first version had "big ass turret bustle " for 1400 mm long round and charge, but then they -

On subsequent version with a double-flow automatic loader with separate loading rounds was proposed.  The projectile and charge were placed in turret bustle and hull sequentially (… round-charge-round …). http://btvt.info/7english/490_eng.htm

This made loading a bit longer, but the turret bustle length was 2 times shorter.

Development of future Soviet tank in 80-s and was a continuation of works started in 1970-s under designation “Project 101”. Necessity for development was grounded by the development of next generation tank in US and NATO. The importance of this task was well realized by Nikolay Shomin, a new chief designer of Kharkov design bureau, who replaced Alexander Morozov after he retired in 1976. The development of the tank had two main directions – conventional layout with 3-man crew and unmanned turret, which was known under designation “Object 490A” and later “Object 477” and unconventional 2-man design known as “Object 490”. The project “490” developed in the 80s was under development by Eugenie Morozov, son of the famous designer of tanks T-34, T-54, T-64 Alexander Morozov. 
The main features of the “Object 490” were:
- crew consisting of two people - commander-gunner and driver. Reduce the crew to two people and place them in a compact, well-protected capsule. Depending on the specific layout, this gives a volume saving of up to 1.2 m3. 
- the use of hydro pneumatic suspension. In addition to solving the main problem - increasing average speeds by improving running smoothness, it allows to control the clearance of the tank, which increases maneuverability and survivability in battle. In addition, controlled hydro pneumatic suspension by changing the hull angle allows to increase the pointing angles of the gun in the vertical plane. 
- Creation of a special armored refueling and reloading vehicle capable of accompanying the tank in the same formation, overcoming hard natural and artificial obstacles, passing through nuclear contaminated areas of the terrain, and operating under conditions of use of nuclear weapons. In layout no. 1 and 2, it was supposed to implement the replenishment of ammunition and refueling the tank without leaving the crews of the tank and refueling-loading machine. 

Object 490 "Poplar". Unknown Soviet future tank of 80s

http://btvt.info/7english/490_eng.htm

On 6/7/2018 at 10:53 PM, Collimatrix said:

Are you going to cover that never-made variant of T-64 that the T-80U turret design is taken from?

Suppose it will be possible to publish drawing in a next book